Has anyone read Article 199 in the constitution of Pakistan explaining the jurisdiction of the high court?
The article clearly says the high court has no jurisdiction over the armed forces and the soldiers.
Then why a certain judge in the IHC is wasting precious court time in ranting about the armed forces.

Zain Ul Abideen . I am disappointed from this nation: first they ask Army to stay out of interior matters. Then when things get out of control, they call for Army. When Army succeeds in coping up situation,we, same nation, start complaining.
What an Azeem Nation we Are.

Unfortunately the ranting raving judge is unaware of "Pakistan arbitration act 1940"which legalizes"Jirga" and dispute settlements outside the court.
The judge said why DG Rangers was appointed Arbitrator? The law does not say who can be or cannot be an arbitrator and anyone can be as long as disputing parties agree. The arbitrator can be a truck driver or he can be a Major General or COAS.
In this case the government appointed DG rangers to deal with all matters regarding Dharna, thus agreeing y default to any legitimate decisions made by DG Rangers. The protesters agreed to appoint him as their guarantor in case of an agreement with the government thus DG Rangers becoming Arbitrator as per Arbitration act 1941 and giving him powers as per the mentioned law.
Hence people should educate themselves before criticizing.

valid points sir and as a neutral observer i DO SUSPECT our boys had their hand in someway
blaming nawaz for this chaos is based on his track record in the recent past. he is on collision course with state he and his supporters openly insult the judges even in court premises .. and then they taunt the army and encourage situations to worsen up so that somehow the boys in uniform will loose their patience and make the nawaz a political martyr once again.

A two-member Supreme Court bench on Thursday castigated government officials as well as the media for their 'questionable role' in the sit-in at Faizabad, which had disrupted life in Islamabad and Rawalpindi for 20 days.

"How did the protesters get teargas shells and sticks?" Justice Mushir Alam asked the advocate general of the Islamabad jurisdiction.

"If you cannot secure the federal capital, how will you secure the country?" he asked, addressing the government.

At the outset of the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mahmood requested the court to adjourn the matter until Tuesday as the attorney general is out of the country.

"Why should we adjourn if you are going to be present?" Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked in response.

Continuing with the hearing, the judge asked why the country's agencies do not come forward. "Why is the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) representative not here?" he asked, inquiring as to why the intelligence agency was "silent".

He added that it was the ISI's responsibility to protect the state. "The poor of this country provide the funds for ISI," he said.

Justice Isa also took note of the fact that the protests are not completely over and that a sit-in is still ongoing.

"The government is not separate from the army," observed the bench. "They should not be maligned — those doing so are working on personal agendas."

During the last hearing, the court had rejected reports furnished by intelligence agencies, saying there had been no depth in them and that the agencies' performance was not up to the mark.

"We are not satisfied with the ISI report," Justice Isa said on Thursday, asking ISI to submit more details.

'Media fanning conflict'
Justice Isa also censured the media for fanning the conflict. "Is it so easy to say hateful things?" he wondered, questioning the government as to why no action had been taken against the media. "Should we close a few media channels ourselves?" he asked.

It seems to be the media's job to defame people, the judge further remarked, asking who owned each TV channel and where they got their funding from.

"The ISI report also mentions a channel — should we take its name in open court?" he asked.

"We cannot look away from what is happening," the bench said, asking, "Should we issue notices to channels? Where is the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra)?"

The judges said that if the media does not agree with the court's remarks, it could become a party to the case.

"It is our responsibility to hear every party," one of the justices remarked.

"It is the responsibility of TV channels not to fan violence," said Justice Isa, warning that the judiciary would keep an on eye whether the media "corrects its direction or not".

"How can licenses of TV channels be suspended?" he asked.

"Does the media encourage or discourage sectarianism and hatred?"

Acknowledging that an independent media was important for the country's development, the court said that verbal abuse was not allowed [to be aired] in any country.

"Media people are also required to follow the laws," the bench remarked, asking how many channels were operating in the country.

The deputy attorney general told the court that more than 89 channels were operating in Pakistan.

"Did any TV channel tell what Islam is?"

"The media does not tell us who the enemy is. Should we summon all TV channel owners?" the judges wondered.

The advocate general informed the court that 27 cases have been registered against the protesters.

The bench also inquired about how many people had died, how many were injured and how many public and private assets were damaged during the protest.

"Will sit-ins be staged [in the country] to achieve objectives? What message has been sent — that the danda [stick] should be picked up to achieve anything?"

'Preaching' Islam
Speaking on religion, Justice Isa said Islam had spread in the region due to the strength of Muslims' character, not war.

"Can people even talk about Islam in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?" he wondered.

He remarked that the people of Pakistan are "very naive" and get killed due to their naivete.

"Is bloodshed a part of our religion? The tongue is being used as a weapon," the judges noted.

Separately, the court adjourned hearing a suo motu notice taken on the chronic traffic congestion and roadblocks due to the Faizabad sit-in until an unspecified date.

In its last hearing, when the sit-in was ongoing in the capital, the SC had said that the life of believers in a Muslim country was being made difficult, and wondered how the protests would help glorify Islam.

“The protesters are undermining the state and its institutions,” Justice Isa had complained, adding that the biggest crime in any society was fitna [dissent] and fasad-fil-arz [discord], because it disturbed the social order.

'What went wrong with Faizabad operation'
Islamabad police had on Wednesday told the SC that the security personnel who had launched a botched operation against the protesters at Faizabad interchange on Saturday were fatigued due to prolonged deployment during the 20-day-long siege.

“Mixed deployment of different forces, including the police, Frontier Constabulary (FC) and Pakistan Rangers, also had negative effects on productivity,” read the report submitted to the apex court, adding that the religious sentiments of the men deployed for the operation were also provoked by the protesters through their speeches, thus making them a hurdle in effective utilisation of men.

The police report explained that the mob/protesters were prepared and they even cut wires of all relevant cameras installed around the sit-in places within the jurisdiction of Islamabad and Rawalpindi through which their activities were being monitored. They were armed with stones, pistols, axes, rods, teargas shells and masks and were highly motivated religiously.

The report criticised electronic media for live coverage of the operation as well cellular networks and social media which disseminated the time of operation for giving the protesters final notice of the deadline to vacate the Faizabad place.

This went against the police and resulted in the gathering of more protesters from adjoining areas of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, the report lamented.

During the operation, 173 officials or officers of the law enforcement agencies were injured by the protesters, but no government employee or private person died during the operation, as no firearms were issued to any of the officers or officials deployed there, the report said.

The police report also admitted that since the protesters were sitting on an open area, teargas did not work effectively.

Regarding the security plan, the report said that 5,508 officers/officials fully equipped with anti-riot equipment had been deployed at the Faizabad Interchange to disperse the protesters.

Initially, teargas and water canon were used when the operation was launched on Nov 25, but the protesters resisted and assaulted the police with batons and axes and pelted them with stones. The protesters were also armed with teargas and used it upon police force, the report said.

This went against the police and caused a gathering of more protesters from the adjoining areas of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, the report lamented.

After hectic efforts of about four hours almost 80 per cent of the area was cleared from the protesters, but in the meanwhile, workers of the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah from adjoining areas of Rawalpindi joined them and started brutal attacks on police force.

Resultantly, several personnel of police and other law enforcement agencies were injured and rushed to nearby hospitals.

Due to severe resistance by the protesters, there was an apprehension of loss of lives so the operation had to be stopped for some time and the force was reassembled to seal all incoming roads and streets so that another attempt could be made with full preparation.

Regarding the losses the nation suffered during the sit-in, the police report said that protesters burnt many vehicles owned by private persons as well as of the police. The police registered 27 cases from Nov 8 to 25 against 418 protesters, who were sent to the judicial custody after investigation and challans against them were being sent to the court of competent jurisdiction for trial.

The leadership of the Tehreek-i-Labbaik had promised shifting to the Democracy Park to record their protest, after which they should have been dispersed peacefully, but they backed out later from the promise and staged the demonstration at the Faizabad junction while blocking the incoming and outgoing roads used by the general public.

Since the issue was of sensitive nature, the federal government as well as the district administration continued negotiations with the leadership of Tehreek-i-Labbaik to end their demonstration peacefully, the report said.

The Islamabad Capital Territory police under the directives of the Islamabad High Court and the district administration utilised all its resources to disperse the protesters as well as to shift them to Democracy Park, the report said, adding that extra force was also requisitioned from other provinces and Rangers personnel were also deployed at specific points after complete briefing on operations.

The police claimed that the operation was carried out with proper planning but due to strong resistance by the protesters and reinforcement by the workers of the Tehreek from nearby areas of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, it had to be halted temporarily to avoid any casualty, but when information came that countrywide protests had been started and problems were occurring to maintain law and order throughout the country, the operation had to be completely stopped.

IHC lashes out at Army's role 'as mediator' in government's agreement with protesters

The Islamabad High Court on Monday lashed out at the government as well as the Army for the role assigned to the military "as the mediator" in the agreement to end the sit-in at Islamabad's Faizabad Interchange.

The Army chief instead of following the orders of the chief executive became a mediator, pointed out Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

Security forces had launched an operation against protesters camped out at the Faizabad Interchange on Saturday after the high court had ordered the clearance of the bridge that connects the federal capital with Rawalpindi. The same day, Chief of Army Staff Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa had advised Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi to "handle the Islamabad dharna peacefully".

The day-long operation had culminated with the government seeking the military's assistance to disperse the participants who had put up fierce resistance to the security personnel's action.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD
However, the Army had said in its response to the government's call for assistance that while it was "fully ready" to take action, a "few points need deliberation". Subsequently, no troops were deployed in the city.

"Where is their Radd-ul-Fasaad now? Did they not see any Fasaad (anarchy) in this protest?" Justice Siddiqui asked as a hearing into the Faizabad protest was underway at the high court on Monday. The judge was referring to a military operation that was launched in February.

The judge remarked that this was proof of the 'military's involvement'.

"Who is the Army to adopt a mediator's role?" inquired the judge. "Where does the law assign this role to a major general?"

Brave Judge. Finally some sane voices coming out from Judiciary. I believe if Pakistan is to move forward Army will have to stay in Barracks and should have no role in politics what so ever.
Army's involvement during the whole episode has been heavily criticized, its a good learning lesson for Pakistani establishment. They cannot take the trust of Pakistani people for granted. This heavy criticism is good considering that society has suffered decades of dictatorship at the hands of various army generals, where people were not allowed to question army/ military establishment or ISI. The judges have been fired previously if they ever disagreed , eg Iftikhar Chaudry and prior to that judges of higher judiciary were sent whom when they refused to take oath under PCO during Musharaf's early tenure.

The army in India cannot deny the government request according to our constitution. One simple question to Pakistani friends: Does the Pakistani constitution allow the Pakistani army to deny request of Pakistani government? If yes please enlighten me about the Pakistani constitution, if no then Is Pakistani army above Pakistani constitution?

Click to expand...

To my knowledge under 1973 constitution of Pakistan, Army cannot refuse any call from civilian leadership. And no they are not ( or shouldnot be) above the law or constitution. You cannot compare Indian military and Pakistani military establishment as both have different history when it comes to participation in politics. Some thing that Pakistan need to learn quickly.

@The Eagle
Please moderate the Indian comments in this threat please. Not needed!

The day I need one of yours to spoon feed me, please take me round the back of the yard and shoot me with shitballs! Till the how about your deal with your own national **** ups!

Salam!

Click to expand...

Doing precisely that - dealing with our own national #$%* ups ..... why do you think I take trouble to actually make a case for moderate and stable Pakistan?

That was the biggest #$%^ up of ours till date! And a going one at that.....

PS: I get where you are coming from, TTC tag and a feeling of relative 'supremacy' whereas a simple query on what exactly were you implying by the post (as there are two variants that can be deduced from it) was too difficult for you to answer and hence the arrogance you displayed. And again, because you actually know naught of what you really wanted to convey, choosing an ambivalent position as opposed to the definitive posturing that remains the need of the hour. Easier that ways right?

245. Functions of Armed Forces.- 1[(1)] The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

Comments:
Clause 1: Armed Forces are in default, aren't they? Were they or were they not given a direct explicit order by the Government of Pakistan to act in aid of Civil Power?

(2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1), shall not be called in question in any Court.

Comments:
Clause 2: What is the ambiguity here? As per the Constitutional provision as above, Armed Forces were requisitioned in aid to civil power. The Clause here specifically negates the power to question the directives of the Federal Government. This is precisely the issue - of confusing the Federal Government with Armed Forces. Why is that in Pakistan this ambiguity exists - of what is a Federal Government and what are the Armed Forces of the nation? And the difference there of? @Syed.Ali.Haider@Joe Shearer

(3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forced of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245:

Comments:
Clause 3: Raises the clarity of immunity to armed forces when they are acting under Directives of Government of Pakistan. This is not even remotely in line with the directives of the Federal Government or am I mistaken in my belief that the Federal Government indeed asked the Armed Forces to NOT come out and control the crowds and broker a deal with the radicals involving ISI? When Clause 1 was never brought to fruition (following the legal and constitutional directive as issued by the elected government of the day), how is this clause valid?

Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power.

Comments:
This is interesting and precisely my contention. Please do specify the instance where directives of the Federal Government are being implemented by the Armed Forces?

(4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3) instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting.]

Article 199 requires an applicant asking the court yo take action. The high court cannot take any action by itself, I needs a claimant.
In Faizabad case there were two disputing parties, the government of Pakistan and Dharna leaders. None asked the high court to interfere, and yet they did.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

That is why have asked clarifications. Facts are being obfuscated by illogical and self serving interpretation of law and ignoring the sequence of events to champion the inaction of Army and it's abject failure to uphold the Constitution of Pakistan and back the Constitutional Authority.

Please refer here:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the Tehreek Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah to call off its sit-in at Faizabad.

Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui issued the direction while hearing a petitionfiled by the religious group,seeking action against lawmakers responsible for altering a declaration related to finality of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Elections Act 2017. However, soon after the error was pointed out by lawmakers, parliament rectified it.

Now, how is it that the religious group had filed a motion, and there were petitions to the Islamabad High Court and yet you claim non-validity of the Jurisdiction of IHC here under Article 199?

I see a proper due course of law being followed by the IHC and as a consequence, the IHC had asked the Government to enforce it's directives and clear the area.

The Group was in contempt of Court from it's first order as quoted in link above.

Specific provision wherein the Judge has been right in accordance with your own laws under Article 199 (which I clearly indicate as being valid above):

(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,—(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order—(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do;

And in criticizing the failure of Government and through it, the Armed Forces also (who ignored the Government's order), the court is well within it's legal rights and laws as interpreted by all those who are NOT scared of following the law vide

declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect;

Comment: Did the Armed Forces of Pakistan or the GoP seek a stay on the IHC order of vacation of the protestors from the Supreme Court? I can go on.

The issue is, clearly there is a case for Contempt of Court proceedings against everyone involved. The law was subverted actively and the IHC's authority and rule of law undermined by actions as indicated by the timeline of the event. Correct me if am wrong on any of the aspects of law here. Am not a lawyer, but merely my understanding of the law as have undertaken tasks in aid to civil authority in India too and know this aspect a bit

Am not challenging the contention of IHC not having the right to take suo moto action (as opposed to India, where it does take action quite often) as clarified as under

Honestly I still don't get ...... why ....... the need to object on what role Army played ........ then.

Click to expand...

The only need is the costs that shall be paid by you and your future generation in terms of ceding the space to radicals and distorted views.

80s saw the Islamised (or should I appropriately call it the Zia?) version of education creeping into the Pakistani Education System. The History of Pakistan began then with landing of MBQ instead of 1947. Why not make it to the first man? And add how the humanity usurped formation of Pakistan since then?

Doing precisely that - dealing with our own national #$%* ups ..... why do you think I take trouble to actually make a case for moderate and stable Pakistan?

That was the biggest #$%^ up of ours till date! And a going one at that.....

PS: I get where you are coming from, TTC tag and a feeling of relative 'supremacy' whereas a simple query on what exactly were you implying by the post (as there are two variants that can be deduced from it) was too difficult for you to answer and hence the arrogance you displayed. And again, because you actually know naught of what you really wanted to convey, choosing an ambivalent position as opposed to the definitive posturing that remains the need of the hour. Easier that ways right?

Salam and peace!

Click to expand...

Why do you Indians always resort to questioning the TTC tag? Insecure much?

I'm an TTC because of my background in Pak Government. You should ask @fatman17@WebMaster Why they made me TTC in 2008. Me being a TTC and talking about politics I am no more or less than average member on PDF.

The amount of times an Indian member has brought up my TTC title makes me laugh!

245. Functions of Armed Forces.- 1[(1)] The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

Comments:
Clause 1: Armed Forces are in default, aren't they? Were they or were they not given a direct explicit order by the Government of Pakistan to act in aid of Civil Power?

(2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1), shall not be called in question in any Court.

Comments:
Clause 2: What is the ambiguity here? As per the Constitutional provision as above, Armed Forces were requisitioned in aid to civil power. The Clause here specifically negates the power to question the directives of the Federal Government. This is precisely the issue - of confusing the Federal Government with Armed Forces. Why is that in Pakistan this ambiguity exists - of what is a Federal Government and what are the Armed Forces of the nation? And the difference there of? @Syed.Ali.Haider@Joe Shearer

(3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forced of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245:

Comments:
Clause 3: Raises the clarity of immunity to armed forces when they are acting under Directives of Government of Pakistan. This is not even remotely in line with the directives of the Federal Government or am I mistaken in my belief that the Federal Government indeed asked the Armed Forces to NOT come out and control the crowds and broker a deal with the radicals involving ISI? When Clause 1 was never brought to fruition (following the legal and constitutional directive as issued by the elected government of the day), how is this clause valid?

Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power.

Comments:
This is interesting and precisely my contention. Please do specify the instance where directives of the Federal Government are being implemented by the Armed Forces?

(4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3) instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting.]

Quite clear.

Incorrect.

That is why have asked clarifications. Facts are being obfuscated by illogical and self serving interpretation of law and ignoring the sequence of events to champion the inaction of Army and it's abject failure to uphold the Constitution of Pakistan and back the Constitutional Authority.

Please refer here:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the Tehreek Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah to call off its sit-in at Faizabad.

Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui issued the direction while hearing a petitionfiled by the religious group,seeking action against lawmakers responsible for altering a declaration related to finality of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Elections Act 2017. However, soon after the error was pointed out by lawmakers, parliament rectified it.

Now, how is it that the religious group had filed a motion, and there were petitions to the Islamabad High Court and yet you claim non-validity of the Jurisdiction of IHC here under Article 199?

I see a proper due course of law being followed by the IHC and as a consequence, the IHC had asked the Government to enforce it's directives and clear the area.

The Group was in contempt of Court from it's first order as quoted in link above.

Specific provision wherein the Judge has been right in accordance with your own laws under Article 199 (which I clearly indicate as being valid above):

(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,—(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order—(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do;

And in criticizing the failure of Government and through it, the Armed Forces also (who ignored the Government's order), the court is well within it's legal rights and laws as interpreted by all those who are NOT scared of following the law vide

declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect;

Comment: Did the Armed Forces of Pakistan or the GoP seek a stay on the IHC order of vacation of the protestors from the Supreme Court? I can go on.

The issue is, clearly there is a case for Contempt of Court proceedings against everyone involved. The law was subverted actively and the IHC's authority and rule of law undermined by actions as indicated by the timeline of the event. Correct me if am wrong on any of the aspects of law here. Am not a lawyer, but merely my understanding of the law as have undertaken tasks in aid to civil authority in India too and know this aspect a bit

Am not challenging the contention of IHC not having the right to take suo moto action (as opposed to India, where it does take action quite often) as clarified as under

The only need is the costs that shall be paid by you and your future generation in terms of ceding the space to radicals and distorted views.

80s saw the Islamised (or should I appropriately call it the Zia?) version of education creeping into the Pakistani Education System. The History of Pakistan began then with landing of MBQ instead of 1947. Why not make it to the first man? And add how the humanity usurped formation of Pakistan since then?

The rest, you are all too aware of.

Click to expand...

Listen to yourself! (I'm not challenging the contention of the IHC) oh bahi you can't challenge Jack. Except write walls of text on PDF about issues that don't even concern you.

The only ambiguity in this whole saga is the one deemed desirable by those in charge. Which side of the coin toss wins? In Pakistan, the Army wins heads, the civilians lose tails. The whole world sees this, but as long as the Pakistanis themselves bear the brunt of this situation, no one else can change anything. There is no need to get worked up over this, at least not too much, in an environment that is carefully managed according to directions from assigned handlers.